McGregor’s Theory X and Y Essay

The foundation of McGregors guess has direct think to Taylors study of scientific management a study of scientific management as a link between humans beings and their projects which in turn need to be re-constructed to maximise efficiency (Waddell et al. 2007, p. 43). Many researchers and scholars befool developed theories based on the work of F.W. Taylor. McGregor, Maslow and others who assisted to im designate the flock of human relation tried to prove that there is another face to the traditional perspective of workers (Bartol and Martin 1998, p. 52).This literature re skyline leave be stress on the evolution of McGregors possibleness X and conjecture Y in relation to the development of management surmisal. Moreover get out be explaining the definition of X and Y theory and its relevance to twenty-first hundred.McGregor proposed dickens contrasting sets of charabancial assumptions about the workers. He further examined taking Taylors traditional view of workers and mayonnaises human relation get along into consideration, which he labelled Taylors view as possibility X and as Mayos view as Theory Y (Montana and Charnov 2000, p. 25). (Stephen P.Robbins) However, both these theories have the common definition of functions of manager management is liable for organising the elements of productive enterprise- m angiotensin converting enzymey, materials, equipment, and pack- in the best interest of economic ends. Main differences in these two theories be the assumptions (Urwick 1970, p .1). McGregor with his experience as a manager and as a psychologist, observed the behaviour and attitude of the workers (Daft.2003, p. 47). According to Kopelman, Prottas and Davis (2008, p 1) Theory X represents that workers by and large dislike work, are irresponsible, are unenrgetic and require close supervision. In contrast, Theory Y denotes that individuals are generally creative, innovative, accept responsibility and believe work is a natural activity.F urther much, his observations on the classical and the behavioural approaches to understanding workers were found different. He paired up his theories to the work of Abraham Maslow, where he compared the higher needs put forward by Abraham Maslow such as ego-actualization, to a Theory Y leaders style, and note needs such as physiological and safety, to the Theory X leadership style (Bartol and Martin 1998, p. 51). Theory X is referred to as optimistic and Theory Y as pessimistic (Montana and Charnov 2000, p 26), others labeled Theory X as negative and Theory Y as positive (Robbins et al.1998, p 202) and check Schein (1970, p.5) McGregor called Theory X as hard approach and Theory Y as soft approach. According to McGregor (1960, p. 33-35), the assumptions of Theory X are that individuals by temperament do not like to work and will avoid it if possible. Furthermore, human beings do not want responsibility and want precise guidance.Additionally, the workers put their own concerns a bove that of the organization and by nature they are resistant to changes. Finally, human beings are taken for granted to be easily manipulated and controlled. According to Boddy and Paton (1998, p. 201) it is of practice with Theory X philosophy to complicate time registration, supervision, quality checked by a superior as assigned in job description. The main focus of Theory X is that of external control, by systems, procedures or supervision. They believed that managers who accepted Theory X view would be inconsiderate in accepting aptitude of a regular human being (Boddy and Paton 1998, p. 200). Managers who assign to Theory X are pass judgment to practice authoritarian style (Lewis, Goodman and Fandt 1998, p. 56). By contrast, Theory Y has assumptions which is altogether opposite of Theory X. As per Theory Y, work is natural, and tries to occupy them actively and enjoy too.Furthermore, workers do not require detailed supervision and they are self-motivated. Additionally, it assumes that they work innovatively and creatively. If people are given a chance to prove their competency they are ambitious to solve problems and help their organizations meet their goals (McGregor 1960, p. 47-48). Managers who enforce the belief in Theory Y are likely to act a segmentationicipatory style, discussing with their subordinate voicing their opinion, and encouraging them to take part in decision making (Lewis, Goodman and Fandt 1998, p. 56). circumspections main carriage is to structure a proper working environment in articulate to achieve their higher- sight personal goals by achieving organizational objectives (Bloisi, Cook and Hunsaker 2007, p. 205).The organizations of 21st speed of light are in a more dynamic world where technology, commandment and research and better economic conditions are vastly improving. It becomes gradually more important for managers to hold the set of assumptions about human behaviour that McGregor has proposed in his Theory If an individual holds Theory X assumptions then he will not be logical and responsive to data, therefore, will have express choice of managerial style. In regard to Theory Y, he rear end wisely choose from variety of options (Schein 1975, p. 7). Having worked for 15 years in umpteen types of organization, Schein (1975, p. 3) believes that organizations need more Theory Y managers at all levels in particular at higher levels. However, few companies still practice Theory X management (Daft 2003, p.48), but many are applying Theory Y fantasy of management such as Hewllet Packard (Waddell et al. 2007, p. 56) and SOL cleaning service, and it has proved to be a success.They consider everyone equal and value each employees role (Daft 2003, p.48). According to Kochan, Orlikowski and Gershenfeld (2002, p.4) assumptions characterizing twentieth century refers to Theory X and twenty commencement ceremony century organizations characteristics refer to Theory Y were explained victimisation p eople, work, technology leadership and goals. Many organizations have realised the importance of the human capital and are currently try to adopt to change themselves as they recognize. McGregor argued that modern organizations do not take into account the innovativeness of workers. In order to utilize these valuable assets, managers need to provide employees to use their expertise. Thus, provide and piss conditions that integrate individual and organisational goals (Boddy and Paton 1998, p. 200-201). McGregor believed that people in twenty first century are more educated and affluent and they are more self controlled (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, p. 60).Hence, most of the modern organisations strongly practices management by delegating authority, job enlargement, making work more interesting, with increased level of responsibilities and their share of discipline and innovations regarding the work content, work design and results (Montana and Charnov 2000, p. 25). Finally, in order to measure the mathematical process of the individual, the organisations have appraisal system which evaluates their performances annually or semi-annually. For example, companies such as General Mills, Ansul Chemicals, and General Electric have been experimenting with performance appraisal approaches (Ott, Parkes and Simpson 2003, p. 168).These managerial propositions are associated best with the Theory Y management style. According Lorshe and international Morse code (cited in David and Robert 2000, p. 202) in their research of four companies and concluded that successful alliance in the normal business utilize a consistent Theory X style and the other in the creative business used theory Y .These theories may be applicable to some organizations and to some cultures. In article, peoples body politic of China, being a communist country has respectable Theory X in the past and has adopted to practice Theory Y style with a productive result (Oh 1976, p. 1).In summary, Theory X and Theory Y have significant impact on modern management styles. The assumptions of these two theories hold the extreme ends and McGregor assumed that peoples behaviour is strongly influenced by their beliefs. His theories have been labelled relating to Taylor and Mayos work. As in my opinion there is no one best theory which may fit all organizations. However, more in depth research need to be undertaken to identify and prove which theory does best fits. According to Boddy and Paton (1998, p. 202) many argue that both these theories may be inappropriate in some situations. Theory Y is a theory of human motivation, not a theory of how to manage or put across an organization (Schein 1975, p. 1).ReferencesWaddell, D, Devine, J, Jones, GR & George, JM 2007, Contemporary Management, McGraw-Hill Irwin, North Ryde.Bartol, KM & Martin, DC, Management, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill Co, Boston Montana, P & Charnov, B 2000, Barrons Management, 3rd edn, Hauppauge, N.Y Daft, RL 2000, Manageme nt, 6th edn, Thomson learning, OhioRobbins, SP, Millett, B, Cacioppe, R & Marsh TW 1998, organizational behaviour Learning and managing in Australia and New Zealand, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, Sydney McGregor, D 1960, The human side of enterprise, McGraw-Hill book company, New York Boddy, D & Paton, R 1998, Management an introduction, Prentice Hall Europe, London Lewis, PS, Goodman, SH & Fandt, PM 1998, Management Challenges in the 21st century, 2nd edn, South-Western College Pub, Cincinnati Bloisi, W, Cook, CW & Hunsaker, PL 2007, Management and organisational behaviour, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire Hersey, P, Blanchard, KH & Johnson, DE 2001, Management andorganizational behaviour star human resources, 8th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Kopelman, RE, Prottas, DJ & Davis, AL 2008, Douglas McGregors Theory X and Y toward a construct sound measure, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 20, no. 2, 255271, retrieved 22nd run into 2011, Ebsco hordeOtt, JS, Parkes, SJ & Simpson RB 2003, Classical reading in organizational behaviour, 3rd edn, Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont Schein, EH 1975, In defence of Theory Y, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, Issue 1, p17-30, retrieved 22nd March 2011, Ebsco force Oh, TK 1976, Theory Y in Peoples Republic of China, California Management Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, p77-84, retrieved 22nd March 2011, Ebsco Host Urwick, LF 1970, Theory Z, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 35, Issue 1, p14, retrieved twenty-eighth March 2011, Ebsco Host Kochan, T, Orlikowski,W & Gershenfeld JC 2002, Beyond McGregors Theory Y piece Capital and Knowledge-Based Work in the 21st Century Organization, retrieved twenty-fourth March 2011, http//mitsloan.mit.edu/50th/pdf/beyondtheorypaper.pdf